I just want to say going back and forth over some "transactional language" when talking about the relationships is kind of....idk....silly? What he said didn't even seem that crazy. EVERYBODY gets SOMETHING out of a relationship. EVERYBODY EXPECTS something out of a relationship. And I highly doubt that the "language" is representative of how someone actually acts in the relationship, it's just easier to talk in bullet points sometimes. I also highly doubt the guy is out there making arrangements for sex with someone like a client does a prostitute, in a relationship. Who knows how someone acts in a relationship based off their "transactional language."

The fact that you ppl see this as unimportant doesn't mean its unhealthy and potentially damaging (sabotage) for interpersonal relationships. But maybe these articles explain it better than me.

How to Create Transformational Relationships Instead of Transactional?
Payam Banazadeh
Relationships and interactions bewtween people are core to our existance and they define so much of how we will experience this world. How much have you thought about what is the best way to create meaningful relationships with the people around you? Has individualism helped us be more efficient and productive as collective species or are we missing a key aspect to all of this — to transform and be transformed.

I believe there are two kinds of relationships, the transactional relationships and the transformational relationships. One is out of necessity and the other is out of desire. One has a clear demand and request with an expectation of return and the other is open-ended with no expectation other than to give. One of the key catalyzers to my personal growth and development has been to limit my transactional relationships and add depth and breath to my transformational relationships.

Transactional relationships are by nature optimized around getting the most you possibly can in exchange for as little as possible on your part. They are all about you and what you can get, and not about what you can give. Although some of these transactional relationships are necessary, the relationships with people, even if the core objective is transactional, can and should be more transformational in nature. The current school of thought is that you should optimize for your self interest transactions and in such we have all optimized for our self interest objectives, and that is the most perfect state of operating such diverse species. I would argue that we are stronger as collective species if we optimize to advance each other’s goal and that would in fact lead to a much more productive and fuller life.

Of course all of this is relatively easy to say and think about but much harder to act and execute on. So how can we cultivate more transformational relationships and move away from the culture of “transactions”?

No Expectations: The most obvious characteristic of a transactional relationship is expectations. When you enter a relationship already having set your goals and agenda to recieve something in return you will unconsciously strategize and act differently than if you had no expectations what so ever. Expectations are different than clarity. It’s important to have clarity on where, how, and what of any relationship, but expectations kill depth and only add breath. Enter any relationship with only one expectation: to be present, to give when you can, and to receive with appreciation if you are given. This will immediately elevate the nature of the relationship and sets the tune for what has yet to come.Be Real: Being real is of course very subjective. There is no good definition of real. I can’t tell you what being real actually means. But when you see someone that is “present” and “true” you can immediately feel it. Maybe because we are so used to seeing everyone a certain way that any difference and deviation from that norm feels refreshing. But being real and true will have unparallal consequences to the relationships that you make. This will create a natural form of trust that can be used as stepping stones of building meaningful connections.Create Protections: When we feel protected we are much more willing to share and fail. Sharing and being comfortable to “be real” requires feeling protected. Transactional relationships are full of rejections which ultimately forces the parties to not take risks, don’t share, and pander the connection. Creating a protective environment will make you invaluable in the relationships as that level of trust allows others to go big in their lives. What a gift you have given them and what a gift they have given you.Get Uncomfortble : It’s hard to connect if you don’t make them uncomfortable. Ask uncomfortable questions that are geniune and makes people think, and makes you truly learn. Asking uncomfortable questions that can’t be discussed in a non-protected and transactional environment is the first step in the process of creating that safe and protected environment. When you spend time on learning what might be considered a taboo or uncomfortable topic you have created the core fabrics of a new bond.

Transformational relationships should transform you even though by nature you are not meant to be the primary focus. They should change you, make you better, create a bigger pie, create more love, more meaning, and hopefully a better world. Limit your transactional relationships and move to a new state of mind, you would be happier, and have more influence and control over what happens around you.

And at the end, I would leave you with these questions:
How many of your relationships are transformational?
How transformed are you by those relationships?
How transformed would the world be?
And what are you waiting for?

Transactional Relationships
Let’s talk about transactional relationships. I looked up the meaning of the word transaction and found there are two definitions. One has to do with buying or selling. It is a business deal we’re all familiar with, an exchange of some sort. Another is an exchange or interaction between two people.

Many relationships are transactional in nature. Did you ever notice that the quickest way to get what we want from our spouse or children is to make a deal? If you do this, then I will do that. Well, I always do this for you, so why don’t you do it for me?

We’re creating a market with an exchange rate, where one acts only if something is received in return. As someone once told me when I asked for a favor: I’ll do it because I know one day I will need (here he was pretty explicit) and I want you to be there for me. I’m not sure he realized it, but what he was saying is he’s not really doing me a favor, he’s doing himself a favor.

It is remarkable how well bright kids, in particular, comprehend this process. Sometimes they understand us better than we understand ourselves because we would hate to view our intentions in this light. So the wagers are continually increased. When the child is young we tell them, if you listen, I’ll give you candy. As they get older and a little bit smarter, they realize that in order for them to follow directions, we offer retributions transactionally. They begin to demand more. Now we’re stuck. We don’t know of any other way of influencing our children, so the stakes become higher and higher.

In our modern world of affluence, once you reimburse your kid with a trip to Disney World at the age of six, there isn’t much more to trade with them. We teach them well. Eventually, children learn, anything we want them to do, they can get paid for. What we end up producing in such an environment of transactional relationships is a very selfish child. In an adult relationship, we have two very self-oriented, selfish people. The bottom line is what am I getting out of this? You have to offer something, for me to give in return.

We end up stripping ourselves of all influence on the other person. We have no impact. That individual is only compelled by what I’m putting forth. He or she will never do anything for me. It’s only the payment I’m extending that matters. As a result, transaction discourages having a real relationship.

Whereas, with an approach that’s just a little different, we would actually be strengthening our bond. We could wait for the other person to do something for us and then honor it. We’d even be giving the exact same prize, but now it’s no longer a payment. With children, in particular, rewarding is wonderful. Making a transaction, on the other hand, is extremely damaging.

How often is it that someone will say to their spouse: why should I when you never? That is a person who is transactionally oriented. They’ll only respond to your request if you act in return. That’s what we call a cold, business mindset.

True relationships are about being unconditional, and transactions create distance in them. Transactions also mean we carry no weight.
This is a fact in leadership with our children, and interactions with everyone, friends and spouses alike. Sadly, the reality is that a devastating amount of people only have transactional relationships in their lives. When we’re brought up in such an environment, that’s all we know and that’s all we model. That is the only way of moving through life and getting what we want that we recognize.

Incredibly, as this is the only exchange we are familiar with, we project it on G-d. Then Torah can easily be read as G-d having a transactional relationship with us. That’s how we understand it. If you do this, then I’m going to follow up with that.

Thus, there are many people who go through life believing that G-d plays a transactional game with us. In my humble opinion, this is very damaging in our connection to G-d, because this image is just not true. If you do this, I’ll do that. So every time we do something wrong, we are scared. Is G-d going to do something to us? Or we do something right, and we think, G-d, here you go, I expect something in return.

The reality is that G-d has a loving relationship with us. G-d is not petty. G-d is an infinite being.

A transaction, in some respects, is petty. Yet G-d is not here to force us into doing anything. G-d, in fact, wants the opposite. He gives us free choice so we could make the right decision on our own. He does say though that in all aspects of life there are consequences. And this is what we should teach our children. I’m sure we don’t need to enlighten our better halves. By now they usually know this.

So, yes, there are consequences. However, we don’t need to create a transaction out of them. When we live in harmony with the way the Creator intended for us and for the universe to function, that naturally opens a pathway for blessings. Yet when we plug those passages, there are repercussions, just as there would be with clogged arteries. G-d is not saying if this is what you do, then that’s how I’m going to respond. It’s not a cat and mouse game.

Indeed, there are many Rabbis who like to instill the fear of the Lord in people. That is their way of motivating a congregation. What they are teaching is unhealthy, because they are interpreting it as transactional, rather than real, relationship. It’s literally just taking an external element, which is either reward or punishment, and using that as an incentive to get someone to do what’s asked. But the person is not really doing it for you. They are not really doing it for G-d in such an instance.

We have to know unequivocally that G-d loves us. Being loving parents, we make sure our children understand there are consequences. As G-d cares about us, he would like for us to grasp it as well. He wants us to see: this is what’s going to happen as an effect of our actions. He shares this information with us because He loves us. It would be very hard to imagine an infinite G-d retaliating.

This plays on all levels of interactions. When we are living transactionally, we’re not relating to people, but rather to things. Moving outside of the transactional relationship means respecting, developing a rapport with, and demonstrating true love to the other person. Those are the building blocks for the different, transformational type of a bond. In it, we suddenly find that we have influence and can change our relationship completely.

About this whole topic of trusting the heart. Actually I think there's a reason if it feels unnatural - precisely because it is, for some people. Sure it can do this "emotional experience bank" or whatever to call it, with checking the pluses and minuses, but for some people I don't think it's easily affordable to just run with that. Following the heart unconditionally for such people is very rarely an option. Because it involves more risk than for most other people.

I agree though eventually you cannot avoid risk, no matter how rational you try to be about the process when it comes to personal relationships.

I liked @End 's note on the risk and being all in and trust. I also do see it as an all or nothing thing ...

And @Singu yeah well, I agree about the risk but the emotional "give and take" of a relationship does still work in the way you say it does not, it's just less directly shown - eventually if the scores are not even enough, resentment and other negative feelings will build up in the heart and so on. So yes, it is still about "materialistic returns" in that way. It is unavoidable. Just like rational fairness and obligation is also an integral part of relationships. Relationships are not just "made of" feelings and emotions in this fashion. They would be unsustainable that way.

I overall kinda see where @Adam Strange gets seen too detached with trying to socionify all the relationship aspects. But I don't think he just thinks of the women as "wife material" or "not wife material". Just the feelings are not expressed as much but I'd imagine they are there alright.

I think it depends on your life stage, too. When you're younger you may listen to your feelings more easily because it's easier to correct mistakes - you have more time. When you're older a more rational approach makes sense because making a mistake in the choice of a life partner may mean you're not going to find anyone else.

Well I think the point is not that you never get anything out of it or that you should always be sacrificing yourself, etc.

But an important aspect of relationships is transformation and personal growth. There are moments in relationships where you would be saying "I should do this for the sake of X". And the "X" could be based on your personal or relational values. Making decisions based on that would mean that you're not just "getting something out of" the other person or thinking "What am I going to get in return if I do this?". Do you benefit from it? Yes, possibly, but you're not exactly expecting anything from the other person.

Basically I think thinking of relationships in terms of "transactions" is to bypass having to have those values.

I think the word choice is being way too read into. Of course people make compromise and sacrifice in relations for the benefit of the person they are with. Does this really have to be stated? But God forbid someone has standards and wants someone to be a good parent and other positive traits. And I highly doubt there is a human on earth who enters into a relationship with no expectations. That's not real. You go into a relationship expecting not to be intentionally hurt, expecting some kind of physical or emotional closeness, expecting kids or no kids, expecting whatever it is you are expecting. Better to be upfront than to fake like you're above it all.

I think it depends on your life stage, too. When you're younger you may listen to your feelings more easily because it's easier to correct mistakes - you have more time. When you're older a more rational approach makes sense because making a mistake in the choice of a life partner may mean you're not going to find anyone else.

I apparently manage to work the opposite way here then. When I was younger I had a harder time to face certain emotions/feelings and I was more unemotional about my decisions, in relationships yeah. As I got older I started to focus more on those emotions too to make a better choice about the partner. I do think emotional insight plays a role in picking right. Rationality is not enough to do it as good as possible.

Originally Posted by Singu

Well I think the point is not that you never get anything out of it or that you should always be sacrificing yourself, etc.

But an important aspect of relationships is transformation and personal growth. There are moments in relationships where you would be saying "I should do this for the sake of X". And the "X" could be based on your personal or relational values. Making decisions based on that would mean that you're not just "getting something out of" the other person or thinking "What am I going to get in return if I do this?". Do you benefit from it? Yes, possibly, but you're not exactly expecting anything from the other person.

Basically I think thinking of relationships in terms of "transactions" is to bypass having to have those values.

Well different people have different value systems and they can try and subtly or overtly push these on others lol. I don't really know what this transformation thing is supposed to be like, I have different values instead I guess. Overall I really do not understand why you assumed that anyone here in this thread constantly thinks about what to get something out of the other person .......... It's like my words are not even being read by you, Singu. I already said that people don't just have rational self-interest, that feelings are important, etc*.

Do you seriously think that ANY normal person in this world only thinks of relationships in terms of transactions? (Let's skip psychopaths or whatever now)

*: Though I also said everyone does have expectations, consciously or subconsciously, even people who talk about transformation and whatnot.

And yup @Lord Pixel god you are voicing my thoughts perfectly lol in both of your posts.

Hm I realise one more thing. Somehow some people here misreading all the "transactional" wording assume that viewing things through a rational language must mean selfishness too or something - even when nothing is said about having to maximise one's own benefit only. Nah, such a person can totally be driven by altruistic feelings and put their rationality towards that end of altruism and caring about other people. It's just not gonna be the readily verbalised language i.e. the language used won't be emotionally expressive.

And here's something else. I noticed some more emotional people when they do try to pull in objectivity they become very selfish and cold-hearted so maybe such people assume based on themselves ... Not saying anyone in this thread did, but I've had this kind of misunderstanding with other people too before.

Here, I'm going to quote from an MBTI site. I do not use MBTI and I skip past the mention of "functions" in the following lines but the idea itself is still valid IMO (the bolded part was *not* bolded by me):

"INFJs in a loop are withdrawn and shut people out. When I’ve looped in the past, I completely cut off a close friend who was nothing but wonderful to me, simply because I was busy & our friendship was a lot of work. Not your stereotypical INFJ saint, eh? And the worst part is that toxic Ti’s logic will fool you. It’s hard to get out of a loop because Ti makes the looping make 1000% logical sense. You’ll say to yourself, “Hey, ignoring this person isn’t awful of me, even though she’s going through a lot & needs my friendship. This is just what makes sense. I have to look out for myself.” Wrong! You’re just acting like an asshole. I promise you, I could have handled my shit and also have been a good friend. Ti was just a lot more convenient for me to use in that situation. That’s what I mean by selfishness.

So: You lost your Fe, and Ti’s making all of your decisions, and you don’t like it. You feel trapped in your mind, and often disconnected from your emotions. Likely you feel numb and detached. So what do you do?"

This phenomenon I've seen as existing: a more feely person becomes cold-hearted in a similar manner (regardless of "functions"). And end up being extremely selfish in behaviour while that mode lasts. I imagine it happens because they try to use logic but in an inconsistent way, just when they are feeling negative or something. So yes the logic originally meant to be impersonal, impartial, objective and fair will become extra biased and ends up just serving the negativity.

This of course can and will happen with everyone, inconsistency in keeping to general rules of fairness, or any kind of extra bias by negative emotion, but this phenomenon as described I've surely noticed before. In this phenomenon, some people - who are normally pretty focused on emotional connotations and relationships - become unpredictably cold and selfish. As unpredictable as the negative emotion waves themselves I suppose.

So this may be part of why some people interpret me or Adam the way they have. Because they think that speaking in a less emotional language must automatically mean that type of selfishness.

And nah I'm not even relating this to "type", let alone MBTI INFJ. Jung though spoke of it too, when he said Feeling types will use their inferior Thinking in the manner with logic only being a servant of the feelings. I would go a step further and say that everyone can have their emotions dominate, for shorter or longer times, I guess it totally depends on the person and situation - and then they can have automatic thoughts serving the emotion. In Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) a big aim is to work through such automatic thoughts. Since such automatic thoughts are often inaccurate and illogical in actuality. I would say, that kind of automatic thought is much like the quote above or what Jung noted. While there is another mode of operation too available to everyone, where being logical and objective does control feelings and can even go as far as disregarding the feelings even if that's momentarily uncomfortable, but eventually more beneficial.

So then, you can see how that rationality can actually end up very altruistic. If it is able to disregard own discomfort and push ahead anyway with fairness for a goal of benefitting people and not just oneself.

Well different people have different value systems and they can try and subtly or overtly push these on others lol. I don't really know what this transformation thing is supposed to be like, I have different values instead I guess. Overall I really do not understand why you assumed that anyone here in this thread constantly thinks about what to get something out of the other person .......... It's like my words are not even being read by you, Singu. I already said that people don't just have rational self-interest, that feelings are important, etc*.

The argument, which is an argument that even you yourself put forth, is that there already are these "transactions" going on anyway, and the point is to not hide them with "nice language", but to reveal them.

My argument is a refutation to that, saying that people can work from different values than "transactions" or "cost-and-benefits". For example, if there's a child or the elderly on the street that need help, do you say "Well gee, I hope this kid or the elderly pays me back one day..." or "Well I hope someone was looking to see what a nice person I was... or else this whole thing was a waste". Well maybe psychopaths do see it that way.

Or, are you just going to help them, only because you saw that they needed help, and that was good enough reason to do so?

So even if it directly or indirectly benefit the person, they're not exactly expecting anything from the other person. The psychopath may not believe this, but just because he can't experience it or understand it, doesn't mean that it's a lie.

Originally Posted by Myst

Do you seriously think that ANY normal person in this world only thinks of relationships in terms of transactions? (Let's skip psychopaths or whatever now)

Well yes, End has literally said that (I also remember Bertrand saying that relationships are about cost-and-benefits). Adam frequently says that he "has no feelings", although I'm not sure how he views relationships exactly.

Anyway, this has more to do with what End was saying (read his post) than Adam.

The argument, which is an argument that even you yourself put forth, is that there already are these "transactions" going on anyway, and the point is to not hide them with "nice language", but to reveal them.

My argument is a refutation to that, saying that people can work from different values than "transactions" or "cost-and-benefits". For example, if there's a child or the elderly on the street that need help, do you say "Well gee, I hope this kid or the elderly pays me back one day..." or "Well I hope someone was looking to see what a nice person I was... or else this whole thing was a waste". Well maybe psychopaths do see it that way.

Or, are you just going to help them, only because you saw that they needed help, and that was good enough reason to do so?

So even if it directly or indirectly benefit the person, they're not exactly expecting anything from the other person. The psychopath may not believe this, but just because he can't experience it or understand it, doesn't mean that it's a lie.

Well yes, End has literally said that (I also remember Bertrand saying that relationships are about cost-and-benefits). Adam frequently says that he "has no feelings", although I'm not sure how he views relationships exactly.

Anyway, this has more to do with what End was saying (read his post) than Adam.

This is called social currency and it is very common amongst pretty much everybody, whether they are consciously aware of it, or not. Its the truth behind the truth. Everybody has an angle. Nothing moral to say about, it just is what it is.

I prefer to view it as "guy helping child" and keep it simple. Yet, I'm not deluded, there is a lot going on under the surface than meets the eye. Maybe that is hard for a scientist who must observe to know to see this, like you.

If you are going to do a chore, make sure someone saw you do it....hahaha, just kidding but seriously.

Helping another comes with its own self gratification, even if you are the only one that knows about it.

The argument, which is an argument that even you yourself put forth, is that there already are these "transactions" going on anyway, and the point is to not hide them with "nice language", but to reveal them.

My argument is a refutation to that, saying that people can work from different values than "transactions" or "cost-and-benefits". For example, if there's a child or the elderly on the street that need help, do you say "Well gee, I hope this kid or the elderly pays me back one day..." or "Well I hope someone was looking to see what a nice person I was... or else this whole thing was a waste". Well maybe psychopaths do see it that way.

Or, are you just going to help them, only because you saw that they needed help, and that was good enough reason to do so?

So even if it directly or indirectly benefit the person, they're not exactly expecting anything from the other person. The psychopath may not believe this, but just because he can't experience it or understand it, doesn't mean that it's a lie.

Yes there are transactions. Usually it's called the relational "give and take". I'm sure you heard of that. Funnily enough, I don't even like the "give and take" wording bc my fairness ideals (see below) are just... different from that. But yeah pragmatically, yeah they are "give and take". Like I said resentment will grow in the heart and whatnot if the "give and take" gets too unbalanced. Emotional well-being of all parties is important. So an unbalanced "give and take" means bad for someone's emotional well-being (of the well-being of one or more people).

You weren't refuting what I was saying. You misinterpreted my words. I pointed this out already but I'll try once more: I personally don't care about transactions on a conscious level. I do agree they play a role if I am intellectually honest, and also I see it clearly when it comes to analysing emotional well-being of people; but consciously I care more about fairness ideals. Those do include expectations ofc. As do your ideals of growth and transformation.

For the child/old person in the street, the cost analysis is: you give them something that costs you little yet will be giving -relatively- a lot to them. You definitely do this analysis subconsciously at least. Your beloved science talks about this.

Well yes, End has literally said that (I also remember Bertrand saying that relationships are about cost-and-benefits). Adam frequently says that he "has no feelings", although I'm not sure how he views relationships exactly.

Anyway, this has more to do with what End was saying (read his post) than Adam.

This post? "Also, unlike what you seem to think, the "transaction" is not sterile or robotic in our minds. If I offer you my "heart", for example, it is both a calculated risk and an earnestly hopeful plea that you'll accept. I give you all of me, in exchange for all of you. It's only fair yet there is a subtle component to that transaction. Trust. In making that offer, I've implicitly admitted that I trust you completely in all things. Do you return/are you worthy of that trust? The trust of a very, very paranoid person whom you've somehow convinced to do the dumbest thing they can possibly imagine in the hopes that they really were/are wrong about you?"

Or this post of his:

"After all, you already like her a lot. And believe you me, us introverts think very, very long and hard in regards to this question. We are well and fully aware of the limits of time and how every moment actually counts. In regards to the potential father/mother of our children, well, let's just say that we're very keen on ensuring the offspring experience the happiest of family environments provided we're not dramatically psychologically damaged.

This could be an entirely gamma thing, but that's just how I view things. The girl I'm crushing on may well become my wife. I had best be damn sure she is fit for that role. Beauty fades, but personality is forever. The instant I think she'd be a bad mother? Instant drop. If I was a girl... The instant I think he'd be a bad father? Dropped. I like to keep it simple and direct."

If the bolded, esp the underlined are just about cost and benefit to you, then simple: go fuck yourself. I will not discuss anything about this with your extremely biased view any further.

The argument, which is an argument that even you yourself put forth, is that there already are these "transactions" going on anyway, and the point is to not hide them with "nice language", but to reveal them.

My argument is a refutation to that, saying that people can work from different values than "transactions" or "cost-and-benefits". For example, if there's a child or the elderly on the street that need help, do you say "Well gee, I hope this kid or the elderly pays me back one day..." or "Well I hope someone was looking to see what a nice person I was... or else this whole thing was a waste". Well maybe psychopaths do see it that way.

Or, are you just going to help them, only because you saw that they needed help, and that was good enough reason to do so?

So even if it directly or indirectly benefit the person, they're not exactly expecting anything from the other person. The psychopath may not believe this, but just because he can't experience it or understand it, doesn't mean that it's a lie.

Well yes, End has literally said that (I also remember Bertrand saying that relationships are about cost-and-benefits). Adam frequently says that he "has no feelings", although I'm not sure how he views relationships exactly.

Anyway, this has more to do with what End was saying (read his post) than Adam.

In this scenario sure. I agree with @Finaplex about the self gratification though but that's besides my point. In relationships, the only time I see this 100% selfless one sided love is between parent and child. Many cases a parent loves the child no matter what, regardless if they ever get any love back, and they don't expect to get any love back. But in relationships, like Adam said, you don't see someone well off marrying a homeless person. They expect some kind of compatibility, whether it be status, sexual, or emotional. I don't think it's common for people to be in relations where they love but expect absolutely nothing back, can you really say you can love someone and stay in a relationship with them for the long run if they never ever love you back or show you any kind of love whatsoever? Nevermind them just mistreating you in general.

EDIT: I just re-read where you already addressed that last question. And yea I agree there will be times in a relationship where you do stuff and you get nothing back, but yea I feel that goes without saying. Despite all those little moments though, you are getting a relationship in return still, you are getting companionship, intimacy, and everything that comes with the relationship, if the relationship is looked at as a whole.

Another thing is that if you think "What am I going to get in return?", then there's no guarantee that you'll get anything in return - it's uncertain. Some people try to resolve this uncertainty by adding probabilities, like "there's 30% chance of success, or there's 60% chance of success". But reality doesn't work in term of probabilities - it's either a success or it isn't. So it's just a kind of a trick to make you decide into a certain action.

So I don't necessarily think that "What am I going to get in return?" is even the fundamental reason for why people act. I don't exactly know what the fundamental reason is, but I'd suspect that it's more than that.

I'm not saying that people are 100% selfish or 100% altruistic all the time.

Adam frequently says that he "has no feelings", although I'm not sure how he views relationships exactly.

If I said that, I didn't mean that I literally have no feelings. Rather, I try not to let my feelings influence my decisions, because my Fi is about as well-developed as that of an average five year old child.

I don't know how I feel most of the time because I'm consciously ignoring that part of me. And when I do observe that I'm feeling something (Hey, I'm crying....what the hell is this from?, or Why am I smashing the pan? That's something that an angry person does. Could I be angry?), I don't trust my feelings to report the facts.

Another thing is that if you think "What am I going to get in return?", then there's no guarantee that you'll get anything in return - it's uncertain. Some people try to resolve this uncertainty by adding probabilities, like "there's 30% chance of success, or there's 60% chance of success". But reality doesn't work in term of probabilities - it's either a success or it isn't. So it's just a kind of a trick to make you decide into a certain action.

So I don't necessarily think that "What am I going to get in return?" is even the fundamental reason for why people act. I don't exactly know what the fundamental reason is, but I'd suspect that it's more than that.

I'm not saying that people are 100% selfish or 100% altruistic all the time.

Singu, more like Single-u. This is a silly ass lecture to keep on going with. You talk like you've never been in a relationship lol. Not offering, just saying.

Another thing is that if you think "What am I going to get in return?", then there's no guarantee that you'll get anything in return - it's uncertain. Some people try to resolve this uncertainty by adding probabilities, like "there's 30% chance of success, or there's 60% chance of success". But reality doesn't work in term of probabilities - it's either a success or it isn't. So it's just a kind of a trick to make you decide into a certain action.

So I don't necessarily think that "What am I going to get in return?" is even the fundamental reason for why people act. I don't exactly know what the fundamental reason is, but I'd suspect that it's more than that.

I'm not saying that people are 100% selfish or 100% altruistic all the time.

If I said that, I didn't mean that I literally have no feelings. Rather, I try not to let my feelings influence my decisions, because my Fi is about as well-developed as that of an average five year old child.

I don't know how I feel most of the time because I'm consciously ignoring that part of me. And when I do observe that I'm feeling something (Hey, I'm crying....what the hell is this from?, or Why am I smashing the pan? That's something that an angry person does. Could I be angry?), I don't trust my feelings to report the facts.

I want to add that even if the feelings are underdeveloped, your morality is determined by rationality pretty well. It does not even have to be selfish.

And you can learn to trust feelings a bit better, sometimes it's useful...

I think it depends on your life stage, too. When you're younger you may listen to your feelings more easily because it's easier to correct mistakes - you have more time. When you're older a more rational approach makes sense because making a mistake in the choice of a life partner may mean you're not going to find anyone else.

Interesting because my take on it has been the opposite. Plenty of time to screw up meaning when you have burnt out your passion and enter into a void...

Originally Posted by Groucho Marx

I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

Duality isn't an indicator of romantic success because emotion isn't truly one of its components even though different types will cognitively deal with emotion in very different ways. Duality holds the highest probability for peace and mutual cooperation during long periods of domesticity; people with egos that don't clash make the more sustainable, working relationships. Love, physical attraction and libido are separate and distinct so one shouldn't try to mix business with pleasure - it obscures the analysis......

lately I've been reading many different sources about love, from sociology, psycho-analysis, philosophy, as well as direct experience... the theory of socionics duality is never touched, not even from afar. the idea behind falling in love is transformation. when we fall in love we're ready to change, transform ourself into something better, possibly overcome our flaws... and not just be ourselves and wait that someone magically accept it all because they're our dualz. which is extremely immature and delusional.

the idea behind dualization is extremely counter-productive if we use it as a tool for love, it's really the opposite of what love requires. on the other hand, the idea of "dualization", which is commonly used in the psycho circles to describe the split of an individual in 2 is exactly what love is about: transformation, leaving an old part of our self behind and change for the sake of the person next to us. to do so, the person next to us must be, first and foremost, an inspirer, not a dual.

I thought dual was like... you get to most be like yourself naturally around the other person w/o having to be somebody else. That won't necessarily turn into 'omg I really love you!!!' romantic feelings, but... seems like a good enough breeding ground for them.

I think this is problematic as well, I've said this before but if you get to be too much like yourself- you're not challenged enough, and often the introverted dual will get stuck inside a period of unhealthy complacency. So there is a dark side to duality. The theory itself even says not to idealize them. But idk we are only human and humans idealize. =p

the idea behind falling in love is transformation. when we fall in love we're ready to change, transform ourself into something better, possibly overcome our flaws... (...) transformation, leaving an old part of our self behind and change for the sake of the person next to us

That to me seems ungrounded, unrealistic, magical expectations. (Not a personal attack, read on for the real point.) And actually, people do go back to their usual self once they go back to the usual days of living from the honeymoon period.

and not just be ourselves and wait that someone magically accept it all because they're our dualz. which is extremely immature and delusional.

Actually to me this is the one that's not magical, bc to me it's more realistic to just accept someone as is. I don't see anything immature about that. To me wanting to change the other person is what's immature.

Mars: accepts the other person as is - this approach is more often the man's supposedly. Men (at least stereotypically masculine men) supposedly take action in the external world/change the external world, not themselves.
Venus: wants to change the other person - this approach is more often the woman's supposedly. Women (at least stereotypically feminine women) supposedly approach their internals more easily, and change themselves rather than the external world.

If you wanna link it with socionics... feelings are internal stuff (your Fi/Fe/whatever), objectivity about material stuff (your Ti/Te/whatever) in the world is the external stuff

I have considered that many marriages fall apart because of this difference coming out and remaining unmanaged, after the honeymoon... Suppose a focus on all the emotionz in the honeymoon is pretty easy and then afterwards a lot of other things will too easily be in foreground instead, actually for the stereotypical women too, not just for the stereotypical men. And then stress over all the other stuff won't help ....

the theory of socionics duality is never touched, not even from afar

It's mentioned in several psychology sources but with a more realistic take than Socionics's.

@Myst I guess truth is in the middle, on one hand yes, in love, we need someone to accept us for what we are, on the other this need is accompanied by a desire to transcend ourself and our flaws. it's not that a socionic dual is bad, I was exaggerating for the sake of switching perspective, yet it's not the real requirement for a completeness of the self, which is the ultimate goal. we need someone that stimulates us to be complete -alone- so that in 2 we become sort of invincible, or smth like that.

we already contain a dual inside of us, the goal is to bring this inner reality into a shape, and a socionic dual could as well be detrimental to this self-betterment process.

@Myst I guess truth is in the middle, on one hand yes, in love, we need someone to accept us for what we are, on the other this need is accompanied by a desire to transcend ourself and our flaws. it's not that a socionic dual is bad, I was exaggerating for the sake of switching perspective, yet it's not the real requirement for a completeness of the self, which is the ultimate goal. we need someone that stimulates us to be complete -alone- so that in 2 we become sort of invincible, or smth like that.

we already contain a dual inside of us, the goal is to bring this inner reality into a shape, and a socionic dual could as well be detrimental to this self-betterment process.

I agree that some compromise is needed in relationships but it can only be based on acceptance first... Btw the article I linked actually shows the bad side of the duality stuff It just does not use a Socionics framework.

I'll add to the above post... So I said:

I have considered that many marriages fall apart because of this difference coming out and remaining unmanaged, after the honeymoon... Suppose a focus on all the emotionz in the honeymoon is pretty easy and then afterwards a lot of other things will too easily be in foreground instead, actually for the stereotypical women too, not just for the stereotypical men. And then stress over all the other stuff in daily life won't help .... The stereotypical woman then wants extra emotional support beyond what's realistic, from the stereotypical man and she gets negative when she doesn't receive all this extra emotional support, while the stereotypical man will neglect the emotionz/relationship even more, to an extreme degree, by focusing on the work, hobbies, and especially gets distant after the stereotypical woman got negative. And she gets even more negative and he gets even more distant. And so on .......... At the other extreme, when the stress gets too much, they then switch strategy to an even more unhealthy one. She gets cold and distant, he gets overemotional. Think divorce time lol, that's when it'll especially happen.

So much for the dualising idea eh?

Though, the articles I read, such as the one above, or any other books I read about the duality of men/women, do mention there is a more healthy approach yes, if we understand ourselves, our undeveloped sides and each other's differences blah blah blah.

Tho' some do not advocate to develop the undeveloped side too much or too actively. Understanding it and each other still is needed tho'. This is an interesting topic...

@Myst, really good article, thx, lately I like to read real studies conducted on relationship, socionics is an inspiring hypothesis in and on itself, but often too idealistic and programmatic to apply in human messy reality.

btw, interesting because I was thinking of smth similar to the story you've pictured, say you meet someone and in 2 you decide to pursue a bright future filled with your personal potential and dreams, this is the honeymoon stage of a relationship and a fundamental one because of our need to dream and look ahead for better things. well, at this stage the ideas are so strong and look so real that we try hard to follow them and make them real. then the years pass and other things accumulate and we are fulfilling our dreams somehow, but not as we expected, and we are tired and half disillusioned and the person next to us is as tired and disillusioned as we are and so we look back at the person we were, with a sense of nostalgia and wish to change everything and often we hold our partner responsible for our conditions, and regret what we have become because of them. what I mean is that we "married" our dreams, our expectations, that sense of becoming something else... and if these things don't happen, but even if they happen and routine kills us, if the destiny is unfavorable, we start regretting our past decisions, our dreams, we feel betrayed.

these things can happen even with a dual, it's a universal story that repeats in every love relationship, and it's up to us to handle it in a way or all the possible others; to keep dreaming and building or giving up for something else.

what I mean is that our dreams are more real than what we think, because they're a fuel that keeps us going. what I mean is that it's not necessarily up to a perfectly compatible partner to make our dreams come true, it's more up to our own self. ultimately, to have a perfectly compatible partner is a work in progress, and the moment the magic alchemical work happens, well, it's over, there's nothing left to be reached... while a work in progress is exactly that, a journey that keeps us dreaming.

Jung for instance didn't consider our shadow (the super ID in socion) as necessarily good, it's only good once we accept ourselves, once we're ready to go beyond, otherwise the shadow is a source of great fears and unconscious hate, like your article says, because we still don't have the tools to handle it.

more and more I'm liking the idea that it's the goal of a couple to become dualized, from an initial position where they're not, and it's probably why we see many winning couples as duals, because they've learnt, or better, they're learning, to become one. but this implies that we're ever changing and not the fixed things that socionics says we are...

what I mean is that our dreams are more real than what we think, because they're a fuel that keeps us going

it's more about base N types alike your IEI
other types, especially S ones, if will be significantly going by that "fuel" will dislike that due to coming to not so good outcomes
usage of N needs a training. for S types it's much about trance states
for example, I recently had signes about meeting one human. I wanted that to happen. but I did not felt the meeting and had no dreams how that happens. the only close feeling what I had - is general impression to be calm, do not force events and all will be good by its own ways. my N worked to orginise the meeting and that have happened after < 1 week after the signes. by Tarot I saw this possibility also monthes before that. but it was not directly by N dreams. as N is my unconscious region and to get correct visions I'd need trances. while for N types it's normal mind states - to live by clear dreams what gives them a use. it's not "just dreams" for them, what it is so mostly for S types without special preparations, states and methods

-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx

I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

Wow @Sol, your trances are pretty complex. Idk if I ever had one that really predicted anything lol

I meant a prey mb used for anything, including intentional geting of info and time predictions. As general possibility, not my experience. I did not used this for predictions still, mb as related to Ni is not among my prefered interests.
I had several times a feeling of unification, but there I asked about events or solving of tasks - it worked then. Also had it in common prey without concrete asking. The 2nd variant mb better as your unconsciousness may see more general situation and help you in what is more important. In Mahometanism to ask about concrete thing is not endorsed, for example.

I remember a single case when I got a muddy vision about possible future, but it was not in a prey. I worked by an imagination in a trance, though a prey could be used before to help enter in the needed state. During that accidentally I've got a vision. I tried to influence on IEI girl, to remove some things to allow her to make decisions more by her own. As she has Ni as base function this could to have such effect on me, as to influence on other human you join your mind with his one. I did not know about Jung types and her type, that she has base Ni to which relates time feeling - I was not preconvinced about that.

I met somewhere, Nostradamus used religious technics to get a feeling of unification with God for his predictions. Judaism and his mystic branches being monotheism should to know about this mind state.
I do not exclude that other religions or mystic studies (or atheistic technics which may suppose "just an imagination to deal with the mind") may to have the similar by the efficiency states inspired by own traditions and other technics. What a human feels in this state mb rather secondary and surface to what happens. If you believe in "magic elf" which may to help you, and then concentrate with the ask on elf's image - mb you may get the same. I did not tried. I understand that human mind uses models to deal with the reality and hence what human perceives is secondary and such mb not obligate completely or in parts which look as important.

The simplisitc approach to religion is to simplify them to rituals. While religions itself often say that people "know nothing" There is no reason behind what rituals do, rituals are not the religion itself and what we think about religion is not that. We may do something to get something. It's a black box. We see a surface of that box, may know what to give to one end and what then to expect from other end. Not more. When someone absolutize religions - it's a simplification, to remove doubts and so easier to use known black boxes, this helps to use them - but it's not the Truth, it's models. When children study something they should not doubt in a teacher to accept his knowledge easier - it's the same. But teacher is not absolute and the concrete models are not absolute. There could be many forgotten religions or studies with similar efficiency in the past and may appear in the future. Monotheism itself has several branches with significant differences in rituals and stories and traditions near it - but it's same in its essence - people prey to something similar and may get the similar results. Those people may make even wars to argue for some traditions and stories are the only regiligious Truth, but that wars have a minor relation to the religion - those are more political and other social competing.
Most probably you may be atheist and do the same and feel the same as "saints". You'll just use another black box and will be understanding that as a "black box" without adding of sacred understanding to that. Alike chemistry or electricity practice mb explained without any magic, but mb also with "elfs" [for kids] - with the same results.

@Myst I guess truth is in the middle, on one hand yes, in love, we need someone to accept us for what we are, on the other this need is accompanied by a desire to transcend ourself and our flaws. it's not that a socionic dual is bad, I was exaggerating for the sake of switching perspective, yet it's not the real requirement for a completeness of the self, which is the ultimate goal. we need someone that stimulates us to be complete -alone- so that in 2 we become sort of invincible, or smth like that.

we already contain a dual inside of us, the goal is to bring this inner reality into a shape, and a socionic dual could as well be detrimental to this self-betterment process.

I think the contrary. Sure the dual picks up the areas that are hard for you, but being around the dual also teaches you how to handle those parts of life, so that when they are not around and you have to pick up that load yourself you just emulate what they've done. A dual becomes a reference point for you subconscious to emulate, They essentially help refine your subconscious.

IME at least I notice even before I knew socionics that I emulate some dual behavior when put in a situation where I have to lead or be assertive, it is a more cardboard cut out/caricatured version but at least I have some way of showing up to those challenges, without that vague idea to emulate I'd probably be too overwhelmed to act.

(Note: I'm not talking about socionics duality. More in general than that about undeveloped areas of weaknesses/developed areas of strengths)

Originally Posted by Lord Pixel

I think the contrary. Sure the dual picks up the areas that are hard for you, but being around the dual also teaches you how to handle those parts of life

Doesn't bc you just don't pay conscious attention unless you already know where you need to do that

As for subconsciously picking it up - you do pick up some but not all that much since they take care of mostof it themselves right?

so that when they are not around and you have to pick up that load yourself you just emulate what they've done.

Errrr noooo lol

A dual becomes a reference point for you subconscious to emulate, They essentially help refine your subconscious.

Only if you pay conscious attention painstakingly and even then it's not gonna be an emulation... it's gonna be just you learning more to handle it with your normal approaches, besides picking up some basics here and there

IME at least I notice even before I knew socionics that I emulate some dual behavior when put in a situation where I have to lead or be assertive, it is a more cardboard cut out/caricatured version but at least I have some way of showing up to those challenges, without that vague idea to emulate I'd probably be too overwhelmed to act.

It's good to have understanding of those things so you can navigate stuff better with your normal approaches but trying to emulate directly is going to backfire most likely

So all in all:

1. Know yourself, what you can do, and what you can't and shouldn't force yourself to try to do
2. Know other people too and interpersonal dynamics with them vs you, too
3. Do focus on the undeveloped parts a bit too to integrate that sort of stuff into your conscious understanding so you will do what you can do even better
4. For that a "dual" (not Socionics dual) works to show more on that stuff but only if you already try to develop your stuff consciously, also other approaches of self-development work, therapy, other approaches, just in general talking to / working with other people by being overall well integrated in society, etc.

(Note: I'm not talking about socionics duality. More in general than that about undeveloped areas of weaknesses/developed areas of strengths)

Doesn't bc you just don't pay conscious attention unless you already know where you need to do that

As for subconsciously picking it up - you do pick up some but not all that much since they take care of mostof it themselves right?

Errrr noooo lol

Only if you pay conscious attention painstakingly and even then it's not gonna be an emulation... it's gonna be just you learning more to handle it with your normal approaches, besides picking up some basics here and there

It's good to have understanding of those things so you can navigate stuff better with your normal approaches but trying to emulate directly is going to backfire most likely

So all in all:

1. Know yourself, what you can do, and what you can't and shouldn't force yourself to try to do
2. Know other people too and interpersonal dynamics with them vs you, too
3. Do focus on the undeveloped parts a bit too to integrate that sort of stuff into your conscious understanding so you will do what you can do even better
4. For that a "dual" (not Socionics dual) works to show more on that stuff but only if you already try to develop your stuff consciously, also other approaches of self-development work, therapy, other approaches, just in general talking to / working with other people by being overall well integrated in society, etc.

Nah, I think dual or anybody with strengths in your weaknesses give you examples on how to be better at those weak areas. I think a dual does it more in a way that you can actually understand and consciously practice, not to the same degree of course. And they operate in your suggestive areas after all.

To use the dimensions as an example, with PoLRs and suggestive you have a one dimensional view of it but other types help you get a more multi-dimensional view of those areas. But coming from other types it's harder to understand while from dual or activity it's easier to practice.

I'm only aware of the subconscious affect other types have had on me because I know typology, but even other types have subconsciously affected my use in the PoLR, suggestive and mobilizing, dual or not, but dual advice actually slides into my mind (and affirms subconscious thoughts) while other's advice have to get past more psychological obstacles. Most of the time when I use my weaker functions I'm copying some subconscious example when doing so even if it's not a real person and just a youtube video or TV. It's like my subconscious is scraping for any data I have that will benefit my situation without discrimination if it's real or fictional. And sometimes these emulations are so subconscious I don't know where they came from until I think about it.

I also notice that I copy habits of my SLI dad when dealing with similar situations, that could just be family or it could be IE influence that family just bought me tons of exposure to. In certain situations I've even emulated my SLE relative's behaviors, way before I knew socionics, because I was placed in a similar situation. And none of this was conscious. I could only notice looking back and feeling weird about it.

Nah, I think dual or anybody with strengths in your weaknesses give you examples on how to be better at those weak areas. I think a dual does it more in a way that you can actually understand and consciously practice, not to the same degree of course. And they operate in your suggestive areas after all.

To use the dimensions as an example, with PoLRs and suggestive you have a one dimensional view of it but other types help you get a more multi-dimensional view of those areas. But coming from other types it's harder to understand while from dual or activity it's easier to practice.

I'm only aware of the subconscious affect other types have had on me because I know typology, but even other types have subconsciously affected my use in the PoLR, suggestive and mobilizing, dual or not, but dual advice actually slides into my mind (and affirms subconscious thoughts) while other's advice have to get past more psychological obstacles. Most of the time when I use my weaker functions I'm copying some subconscious example when doing so even if it's not a real person and just a youtube video or TV. It's like my subconscious is scraping for any data I have that will benefit my situation without discrimination if it's real or fictional. And sometimes these emulations are so subconscious I don't know where they came from until I think about it.

I also notice that I copy habits of my SLI dad when dealing with similar situations, that could just be family or it could be IE influence that family just bought me tons of exposure to. In certain situations I've even emulated my SLE relative's behaviors, way before I knew socionics, because I was placed in a similar situation. And none of this was conscious. I could only notice looking back and feeling weird about it.

My point was it will only be conscious if you pay attention to self-growth and the like. And without paying attention it's not going to be enough

Anyway I never saw anyone whose advice would just slide into my mind heh (good thing), and my openness to stuff would depend on more factors anyway.... I agree family is a factor too, for example

Instead of just a dual, just be enough of a part of society and be in contact with enough people.